craigfarmer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 6
First and most importantly, God bless the souls of the victims of the criminal who killed a Judge and two deputies in an Atlanta courthouse. Also, may God bless the family and friends of those affected, and help them find a way to deal with this tragedy in the best way possible.
As the facts slowly unfold, it is appalling that the same kind of mistakes that occur in many Government systems that deal with numerous people are possible in such a dangerous setting as a criminal courtroom. I have been an outspoken opponent of Big government bureacracies that operate within numerous rules and protocols, that attempt to balance various priorities for hundreds and thousands of people. They don't work very well because each human being is unique and every situation is different. The more distant the rules, the less effective they become on a practical basis.
I haven't seen the female deputy that was overpowered by this criminal. Perhaps her gender and size weren't an issue. Yet we need to admit the possibilities, and do a fair investigation. I agree with Affirmative Action in most cases, especially where the criteria is very subjective. THIS is one case where the standards should be objective. For instance, a deputy should be able to overpower a 6 foot 210 pound man.
The next issue is the overcrowding and lack of manpower. Many of these counties underfund their police and security forces due to budget constraints. Often, politicians cater to people's wish for tax cuts or wasteful spending, and then find themselves in a bind and cut staffing where it won't make headlines. Often the redundant systems are the first to be reduced. Where a prisoner usually might have two or three officers guarding them, excess caseload may reduce that to 2 or even 1. We need to ensure these questions are investigated and not discarded because we don't want the ramifications.
Let's hope that those in a position to know didn't withhold criticism or take preemptive action because of fearing a gender (politically correct) dispute.
Again, I don't know what happened.
But, I think it is important that we open our minds BEFORE we begin the discussion. Often the nature of the inquires are so narrow, that we fail to prevent the real dangers in the future.
We must make sure that our desire not to offend women officers, or those who designed the current rules , doesn't supercede our commitment to public safety and doing what's right.
So far, I haven't heard the right questions in the media echo chamber...
Craig Farmer
http://www.newliberals.org
making the word "liberal" safe again
As the facts slowly unfold, it is appalling that the same kind of mistakes that occur in many Government systems that deal with numerous people are possible in such a dangerous setting as a criminal courtroom. I have been an outspoken opponent of Big government bureacracies that operate within numerous rules and protocols, that attempt to balance various priorities for hundreds and thousands of people. They don't work very well because each human being is unique and every situation is different. The more distant the rules, the less effective they become on a practical basis.
I haven't seen the female deputy that was overpowered by this criminal. Perhaps her gender and size weren't an issue. Yet we need to admit the possibilities, and do a fair investigation. I agree with Affirmative Action in most cases, especially where the criteria is very subjective. THIS is one case where the standards should be objective. For instance, a deputy should be able to overpower a 6 foot 210 pound man.
The next issue is the overcrowding and lack of manpower. Many of these counties underfund their police and security forces due to budget constraints. Often, politicians cater to people's wish for tax cuts or wasteful spending, and then find themselves in a bind and cut staffing where it won't make headlines. Often the redundant systems are the first to be reduced. Where a prisoner usually might have two or three officers guarding them, excess caseload may reduce that to 2 or even 1. We need to ensure these questions are investigated and not discarded because we don't want the ramifications.
Let's hope that those in a position to know didn't withhold criticism or take preemptive action because of fearing a gender (politically correct) dispute.
Again, I don't know what happened.
But, I think it is important that we open our minds BEFORE we begin the discussion. Often the nature of the inquires are so narrow, that we fail to prevent the real dangers in the future.
We must make sure that our desire not to offend women officers, or those who designed the current rules , doesn't supercede our commitment to public safety and doing what's right.
So far, I haven't heard the right questions in the media echo chamber...
Craig Farmer
http://www.newliberals.org
making the word "liberal" safe again